Retrieve detailed information for a specific esports match using its match ID, enabling quick lookup of match data for analysis or display.
Get details for a specific esports match by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| match_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond them — no indication of what a match record contains, whether an API key is required, or any rate/error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the key qualifier ('by ID') front-loaded and no filler. It is lean to the point of being terse, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. It is still silent on the api_key parameter and on what 'details' comprises, which leaves gaps an agent must guess at.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies only that match_id is an ID identifying the record; the required api_key parameter and the numeric type/format of match_id are nowhere explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific esports match') scoped by ID, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool esports_matches. However the description never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a specific esports match by ID' implies this is the single-record lookup used after obtaining an ID from esports_matches, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is implied, not documented.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.